You are an idiot then. He said way more fragile than a biker on PCP. A biker on PCP is fragile, so he said way more fragile. Nothing wrong with that sentence, just your comprehension. Less chance than a snowball in hell does not mean you have more chance does it ?

It looks to me like their is something below the foot that makes contact before the white part of the foot makes contact. From the high speed camera, it looks like this make contact on the front foot before the back foot leaves the ground. I thought to be running, both feet need to be in the air at once. Otherwise you were walking. Maybe I am just seeing the video wrong? Regardless, it looks very impressive.

It looks to me like their is something below the foot that makes contact before the white part of the foot makes contact. From the high speed camera, it looks like this make contact on the front foot before the back foot leaves the ground. I thought to be running, both feet need to be in the air at once. Otherwise you were walking. Maybe I am just seeing the video wrong? Regardless, it looks very impressive.

If you watch closely around:53 you can see that both feet are not touching the ground. But really, when you're being pursued by a hyper-ambulatory Asimo, my mind's on survival, not robo-locomotive kinematics!

I did read that, and watched the clip. Clearly both feet aren't off the ground for ~1/3 of the time, so the article text is suspect to me. I agree that both white feet are off the ground at 52-53, and no significant load is on either foot at this point. What I am referring to is that it looks like there is an additional part below the foot (perhaps some black shock absorbing/traction material) that remains in contact longer on the back foot, and makes contact sooner on the front foot, with the back foot mak

Depends on if you're investing for dollars or inventions, I suppose. I think Toyota has a good research program, and there's a good chance that long-term more exciting things will come out of it. But it's a totally different question whether this will result in Toyota stock being worth significantly more. They could totally implode in the medium-term if their actual business (selling cars) does badly, for example. Or they could fail to figure out how to commercialize the technology, Xerox PARC style. Etc.

oh i think they have a firm plan for commercialize this, btw. Japan's population is growing ever older (as is the rest of the developed world, as more people push education and career before family, and have smaller families when they finally get round to it), and have a very xenophobic outlook (tho the samurai of old benefited from from immigrant workers, said workers where seen as lower then the lowest nipponese, and the descendants from said workers may well find themselves discriminated against to this

Ah yeah, I had forgotten about that angle. It's an interesting viewpoint--- I can't find the link again, but I recall reading a study that found that the idea of robots taking care of old people was viewed as a dystopian possibility in the U.S., but a utopian one in Japan.

Although (to reply to my own post), an interesting study [stanford.edu] [PDF] I ran across while looking for that other one suggests American attitudes towards robot employees are warming up in some areas:

We present a study of peopleâ(TM)s attitudes toward robot workers.... We found that public opinion favors robots for jobs that require memorization, keen perceptual abilities, and service-orientation. People are preferred for occupations that require artistry, evaluation, judgment and diplomacy."

As has been said elsewhere, Toyota makes a lot more than just cars. And if I were worried about someone's business failing in the auto industry, I would not be concerned for Toyota anyway, to be certain: they're probably the most reasonably priced, reliable vehicles available in the US (and elsewhere) right now.

As for the research itself, it doesn't seem like it was all that difficult to accomplish, in my mind: we have understood the mechanics of running for some time. We've got slow-motion pictures, xrays,

There's not much of a moment of suspension, but there is some. There's a little more than with Research ASIMO.

Perhaps a poor pun, but you forget that ASIMO has been running now for at least 5 years. Back in 2005, my girlfriend and i watched the run demonstration on one of Honda's world trips. The literature at the event pointed out that the robot had been running (both feet off the ground) for at least a year prior to that event.

It is likely that this position allows more leeway to handle a situation in which the "legs" may need to be stretched out to balance itself, and to leave some room for climbing staircases etc. It also probably has something to do with balancing the CG.

Why are all of these robots configured to work in a squatting position?

* lower center of balance* better shock absorption* "neutral" position more centered in range of motion

Humans don't walk that way because we have very long (and weak) legs relative to our body size and we'd exert too much energy keeping our muscles tense. But most other animals keep their legs in a "crouched" position all the time. Examine some skeletons.

The robot's stance actually a lot closer to the position that athletes take when they're expecting interference with their balance - football players, martial artists, etc. all work to keep their center of balance low so that it's harder to tip them over.

Standing fully upright locks your knees and actually makes you much more unbalanced; we only do it because it's less exertion for our leg muscles.

1. Squatting allows the foot to be lifted more quickly when it needs to be repositioned.

2. It is hard to make a 'ligament' that can still apply significant torque when the joint is straight. Being able to lock the joint is an energy saving feature, probably not the most important of the criteria here.

3. In a knee straight position, the knee joint can only apply force in one direction. This means that the ankle joint has to be used in the other direction (and the moment arm of the ankle is longer, since

There's not much of a moment of suspension, but there is some. There's a little more than with Research ASIMO.

Most legged running researchers are trying to maintain some stability criterion, and avoid spending much time in suspension, with all legs off the ground. This may be the wrong approach.

There are two schools of thought in this field. There are the people who start with walking and try to work up to running, and the people who start with hopping and try to work down to running. Most work is from the first school, but BigDog comes from the hopping faction.

Suspension is sometimes a good way to get out of trouble. You get to move all the limbs while in flight and get completely new footholds. Watch some basketball and you'll see this frequently. There's also a half-suspension in quadrupeds, as when you see a horse kick up their hind end to reposition the legs.

The technology in this area can get much, much better. The hardware, in robots, sensors, and computers, is almost good enough. Now we need smarter control algorithms.

I really don't think the hardware is good enough yet. To run smoothly and efficiently robots will need joint motors that are springy and compliant just like human muscles. All of the robot limbs I've ever seen are far too stiff (with the possible exception of BigDog's legs). Just look at this guy's head and arms shake while he's running; there are huge shock forces being transmitted from the feet directly up to the torso through all those stiff joints. Not only is that likely bad for the robot, it means

To run smoothly and efficiently robots will need joint motors that are springy and compliant just like human muscles.

I tend to agree. What you want to emulate a muscle is a spring with a variable spring constant and zero position. There are several ways to do that. A double-ended pneumatic cylinder can do it; if you pressurize both ends at a high pressure, it's stiff, and if you pressurize both ends at low pressure, it's springy. Relative differences in pressure change the zero position. If the valves are close to the cylinder, position control of pneumatic cylinders works. Someone at CWRU built a robot this way. Of course, you need an onboard air compressor.

There's a new variation on this concept - a device which is both a pneumatic cylinder and a linear motor. A pneumatic cylinder is a piston in a tube, and a linear motor is a magnet in
a tube with coils outside the tube. So a device can be built which has a magnet as the piston and coils outside the tube, allowing both pneumatic and electrical operation. The linear motor does the fine positioning and the pneumatic system provides high power when needed.

It's possible to do an adjustable spring mechanically, using two actuators pulling on opposed springs. That's been tried, but most of the designs involve pulleys and strings, which tend to be troublesome. I've been working on a new string-less mechanical design in that area, one that can fit inside the space required for an R/C servo of the type used on hobbyist robots.

BigDog is hydraulic, and its actuators are very stiff. They had to put a bicycle shock absorber at the end of each leg to handle the landing shocks. But BigDog doesn't recover significant running energy. The Legged Squad Support System, the militarized successor to BigDog, may have energy recovery. There are things one can do with hydraulic accumulators and extra valves to get spring-like behavior out of hydraulics. Still, BigDog does a nice job; energy recovery will improve gas mileage, not stability.

There's also a way to fake spring-like behavior, using a "series elastic actuator". This is a leadscrew-type linear actuator in series with a stiff spring. When the spring is compressed, the drive motor frantically tries to release the pressure before the spring bottoms out. This doesn't really store much energy, but it can be used to fake something that does. Pratt at MIT came up with this, and it's a useful research tool.

There have been a number of other, more exotic muscle-line actuators, including fluids that change properties in an electric field, but so far, they're all worse than the ones mentioned above.

From what I've seen (which is, admittedly, only a couple of youtube videos), BigDog seems much more capable of coping with unforeseen events, whereas ASIMO looks like it only needs one variable to be slightly outside of expected range and it'll fall flat on its face. And possibly explode.

One would assume that it's not unreasonably hard to start from walking and move to running.

Yes, one would assume that. And one would be wrong.

People have been studying locomotion for centuries. Until the 1980s, almost everyone obsessed on gait issue. There's an extensive literature on stride length, footfall pattern, and similar gait issues. Most locomotion studies focused on straight-line movement, too.

I don't get it. While impressive and cool-looking in itself, it's obvious that the robot misses a host of methods the human body can employ to move gracefully and efficiently on two legs. I'd suggest developers of humanoid robots try to understand how humans do it. Research into martial arts should teach them a thing or two, T'ai-Chi Ch'uan should work especially well.

The fact that biped after biped robot is produced that tries to crack the problem by brute force without taking lessons from humans.

Just as babies can't start running from the get-go, their tech slowly evolves as well.

I don't think that's a valid analogy, but let's ignore that.

The fact that it can balance on two legs and withstand pushes is already remarkable. Self balancing is a huge step towards faster methods of locomotion.

Based on how it runs, pushing off the balls of its feet, swinging its body with its arms as counterbalance on the opposite side, it seems to have a remarkably human stride. Discounting the overly bent knees.

Also, I would be amazed if Japanese people haven't taken into account martial arts. They've probably spent months, if not years, with motion capture tech on various humans running to get this far.

I agree that it looks much better than previous attempts. But much of the better look is faked, in the sense that it mimics human behavior on the surface, despite the fundamentally different construction. In humans, the arms swing because of a complicated rotational movement of the spine, together with movement freedom

...who is totally, utterly impressed by the sight of this set of mechanical parts actually running? Watching the video I have forgotten that this is all a mass of composite and metal. All those SF movies and animations where robots are depicted as slowly-moving objects have been obsoleted in one instant. If anything, it's time for some rather more terrifying robotic characters.

I have to humbly admit not to know much or nearly anything, about Battlestar Galactica (I don't watch TV shows). Could you tell me if footage of those running cylons can be found on Youtube in some way?

We already have a lot of stuff on treads and wheels, so they want to lead in a new direction. Literally, there's no point in re-inventing the wheel.

Much of human civilization is designed around the human form, and a robot capable of humanoid movement may have advantages than other forms of movement do not. Maybe they'll be able to walk down the hall, open the door, bend over and grab the newspaper, go up the stairs, sidestep around the hyper-active 6-year old running down the hall, and hand us the newspaper

Only sad part is that in Japan those are evolving for peaceful reasons whereas in USofA for military purposes. Check recent stories about exoskeletons before you mod me down as flamebait...

Sad as cooperation for peaceful purposes would make world a much better place, and military one, no comments. Recently they started testing some of airborne droids to shot on meat targets without human interaction. Sad where all this is going...

Not necessarily, it could also be seen as, the USA (and others) are creating robots that are already against us, whereas Japan (and others) are creating ones that will eventually turn against us.

What better way to do? Get one of these helper bots in every home, on every street corner, flip the switch and they all take over without any loss of (your, the conquering) lives. Not that I'm saying that's what they are doing, but simply because these appear benign, doesn't necessarily mean that's the ultimate goal, although I do like to think they are to remain harmless, "here to do good thing" robots, as the Japanese have generally always done with them, from Karakuri Ningyo's [wikipedia.org] brining tea, to these.

Get one of these helper bots in every home, on every street corner, flip the switch and they all take over without any loss of (your, the conquering) lives.

Somehow, I bet the conquering robots wouldn't fare too well out in the Midwest. When the husband comes in from the field at lunch with his Winchester, that robot'll be mighty sorry (unless they're made with kevlar casings, in which case we should all see "it's a trap!" is quite evident).

I don't know both Cyberdyne Systems and Omni Consumer Products were US companies.

Weapon systems aren't all bad they make for good movies. If weapons never evolved Rambo would be lobbing spears against knife welding bad guys, no were near as many bangs and explosions. All we need are really cool weapon systems that never get used in combat say the F22 its perfect. Also I have nothing against weapons that prevent bad guys from hurting good guys, as always it isn't the weapons themselves that are bad but tho

I recently watched Gundam Wing again, and even in a cartoon series, some of the characters make extensive speeches about how robot war desensitizes humanity and is therefore wrong. War should be fought by people so that they can understand its terrible cost and will work to oppose and end it.

I recently watched Gundam Wing again, and even in a cartoon series, some of the characters make extensive speeches about how robot war desensitizes humanity and is therefore wrong. War should be fought by people so that they can understand its terrible cost and will work to oppose and end it.

That always filled me with hatred. The philosophical idea is that fighting with robots in war has no "meaning", I've always thought it was more important that humans survive than that war have "meaning". The idea that people need to die in order for you to feel better about voilence is indefensible.

Humans have to take the risk of dying to make them avoid violence. If they do not run the risk, it is easier to inflict violence on others. It is philosophically easier to kill with a gun than with a knife, because you are removed from the real physical act. A robot can kill on your behalf without you being on the same continent. How does that reduce the tendency for violence ?

Either you are against violence or you're not - which is it ? People shouldn't have to die at all. Making machines do your d

But I thought the Japanese invented Gundam Suits and various Mech armors like that.

Incorrect. The first "mobile armor" suit I'm aware of was conceived in Starship Troopers [wikipedia.org], which won the Hugo Award in 1950. Gundam didn't come about until 1979, and Mechs (as in, BattleMechs) did not come about until the 1980s, and were derived from the Japanese mecha. The first instance of "mecha" I could find was in 1956, which could certainly have originated from Heinlein's work. (That said, ideas tend to occur in spurts, and the 1950s was a pretty big time for the relatively-new powerful mechanized, hyd

"Only sad part is that in Japan those are evolving for peaceful reasons whereas in USofA for military purposes. "

Japan thrives under the US conventional and nuclear military umbrella, hosts large US forces, and benefits from US militarism while maintaining a peaceful image of moral superiority. The Japanese military itself is rather impressive, but discreet.

Well, maybe. We'll see how the peace-loving Japanese use their technology once they realize that the NorKors are gonna have nuclear weapons soon as well as the means to launch them and the US is a paper tiger that is both unwilling and unable to defend them any more.

1) There is absolutely no reason that robots should turn against their masters (at least for the time being). The models currently being developed have no consciousness, no desires or anything like that that would make them turn on their masters. I assume that this going to be the case for quite a while.2) Yes, even a non-conscious robot may turn bad because of a programming error, where a strange set of circumstances will cause it to turn on its masters. However, such a set of circumstances is likely to be

5) Would you rather lose a lot of human lives in a war, or let the robots do the fighting for you?

So it's ok if the humans lives are lost only on the opposing side ? What if you're the aggressor ? What if both sides have robots ? If one side is defeated, what happens then ? Are these military robots going to run the occupation government, or just slaughter all humans ?

If there is no risk to your human forces in a war, there is no reason to avoid war. Do you think nuclear weapons have been unused for a half

Obviously, the side that has no robots left (or had none to begin with) will still have to fight with regular human soldiers. Also obviously, the war robots would have to uphold the typical war conventions, not be allowed to harm civilians etc.

You're afraid of this prospect because you don't want to be on the side not having the robots. But if you are the one having the robots, the whole thing starts looking a bit brighter, eh?

I'm looking at it more from the perspective of being attacked by a foreign countr

I do look forward to the robots that can land on their feet after you kick them in the head hard enough to make them spend some time upside down. Those will be cool. They'll show people how to do Kung Fu scenes...

I've heard it's due to demographic pressure and xenophobia. The Japanese birthrate is declining and they don't like foreigners. With fewer workers and no outside source they have to increasingly mechanize their factories.

If they are xenophobic, and their population is aging, wait for them to die out enough and then they will have little choice but to integrate with the Collective... urrhh or maybe just be forced to accept outside help.

Globalisation is a force that can now only be stopped by the scarcity of fuel for global travel. Deal with it. Forget race because we're all humans.

If they are xenophobic, and their population is aging, wait for them to die out enough and then they will have little choice but to integrate with the Collective... urrhh or maybe just be forced to accept outside help.

Globalisation is a force that can now only be stopped by the scarcity of fuel for global travel. Deal with it. Forget race because we're all humans.

Or they can just use their own resources to make robots that take care of their problems. Why is it necessary that they suffer to the point where they are "forced" to accept outside help?

The Japanese auto manufacturers are simply structured differently than most North American or European ones. Where GM/Chrysler/Ford/BMW/Daimler/Peugeot/VAG/etc. focus entirely on vehicles and their various parts, most of the Japanese auto makers are actually a part of much larger umbrella groups that have all kinds of strange subsidiaries. Aerospace and robotics are two common ones, but the Mitsubishi and Nissan groups tackle all sorts of things from plastics, rubbers, chemicals, to electronics, mining, ban

Japanese corporations look at what they can do effectively to make a profit given their position and advantages, not what they can do in their current industries. Robots and automobiles are very similar from a manufacturing point of view, so it makes sense for the automakers to explore that avenue. The question is why other automakers aren't pursuing these opportunities.